How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?

[AMFV]

I've no problem with that. I only object to "this game will focus on this aspect of your characters' activities, and as such the mechanics will be 'how well can you, the player, do these activities?'"

This can happen with supposedly-rules-light resolution systems as much as with genuine free-form. To me, a game system's mechanics should have significant depth (which doesn't necessarily imply a lack of simplicity, nor does complexity necessarily imply depth) in the areas where the majority of player character activities are to take place.

I personally like involved rules systems, although I suspect that's because learning systems is fun for me, I suspect that it's fun for you as well. In fact that's something I tend to really enjoy in roleplaying games, but I understand that some people don't like that, and for some people it's really irrelevant.

[Segev]

I personally like involved rules systems, although I suspect that's because learning systems is fun for me, I suspect that it's fun for you as well. In fact that's something I tend to really enjoy in roleplaying games, but I understand that some people don't like that, and for some people it's really irrelevant.

Agreed. Though I would not hold up rules-lite systems as examples of specifically doing any particular aspect of a game well, unless those simple rules had surprising depth when applied to those situations.

[Knaight]

The fictional world is part of the system, is it not? Ability to figure out how to use (at least) part of the system to your best advantage is system mastery, is it not? If the game the GM is running cares not a whit about social skills that are recorded on a player's character sheet, then that player's ability to actually portray accurately the social skills attempted in-character becomes a highly useful skill for that system. If the game the GM is running cares not a whit about how socially adept a given player is, and instead cares only about how much investiture the character has in the social skills as represented on that player's character sheet, then the ability to actually portray those social skills accurately doesn't matter, just as a LARPers ability to convincingly wield a sword, or make serviceable chainmail, doesn't matter in traditional TTRPGs.

The fictional world isn't necessarily part of the system. Moreover, even if it did, there's a fundamentally different set of skills involved in interacting with a setting at a narrative level than with interacting with the math of the mechanics (usually largely in character creation at that). Folding them both under system mastery dilutes the term. Keeping system mastery to the latter scenario keeps it useful.

[Amphetryon]

The fictional world isn't necessarily part of the system. Moreover, even if it did, there's a fundamentally different set of skills involved in interacting with a setting at a narrative level than with interacting with the math of the mechanics (usually largely in character creation at that). Folding them both under system mastery dilutes the term. Keeping system mastery to the latter scenario keeps it useful.

Is it your contention that the 'fundamentally different set of skills' are not useful in approaching the game successfully? Because, if they are, then they are most definitely an aspect of system mastery, or you're defining both words via such non-standard method that I'll have to ask what you think those terms actually mean.

[Knaight]

Is it your contention that the 'fundamentally different set of skills' are not useful in approaching the game successfully? Because, if they are, then they are most definitely an aspect of system mastery, or you're defining both words via such non-standard method that I'll have to ask what you think those terms actually mean.

I'm not saying that they aren't useful in approaching the game successfully. I'm saying that they are useful in approaching the setting aspect of the game and not the system aspect of the game.

[NichG]

Possibly. And somebody else's ability to sweet/fast-talk the GM might convince him to have circumstnaces set up to best take advantage of their mechanical abilities.

Note that in neither case is the character's ability being bypassed by the player's; the player's is just helping him get the most out of the character's stats and powers.

My mechanical optimization skills enable me to ensure I have a character who is mechanically capable in the kind of thing I want him to be doing in the story of the game.
The silver-tongued player is able to get more narrative choices to go his way so that the things his character is built to handle come up often and in advantageous ways.

In both cases, the character's mechanics are ultimately important to actual success of the character.

Out of curiosity, what would be your read of the following situation - completely unrelated to social skills, but related to the way you're breaking down player and character ability.

There is an RPG which centers - for whatever reason - around chess. Chess comprises the major conflicts of the game, and players must play chess with the DM in order to determine the outcome of those conflicts. However, players can make characters with various chess-related special abilities, fed by the minutes left on the game clock. For example: "Mind Reading - spend 1 minute to ask the DM what his response to a given move would be (he must answer truthfully)", "Clever Distraction - spend 1 minute to decrease the DM's game clock by 4 minutes", "Battle of Wills - Choose one of the DM's pieces other than the King, and he chooses one of your pieces. For the next two moves, neither of you can move those pieces", "Blinding Brilliance - when an NPC challenges you, spend 15 minutes; the DM must play blind chess; you however can see the board normally" etc.

The resolution is driven by the chess game and player ability rather than the character's mechanics, but the character mechanics are certainly 'ultimately important to the actual success of the character' (forcing the DM to play blind chess, for example, is likely to win you the match even if the DM is much better than you at chess). So where does something like that fall on your hierarchy of systems (putting aside that it'd be a very tedious and somewhat ridiculous RPG to play).

[Cronocke]

There is an RPG which centers - for whatever reason - around chess. [snip]

That's a very interesting game you've described there. What do you call a game like that?

*jazz hands* "The Aristocrats!"

[Amphetryon]

I'm not saying that they aren't useful in approaching the game successfully. I'm saying that they are useful in approaching the setting aspect of the game and not the system aspect of the game.

Please provide an example of a game with setting and narrative that is entirely divorced from the from the system. This would mean that none of the encounters within the game, social or otherwise, interact at all with the setting or narrative, by the way.

[NichG]

Please provide an example of a game with setting and narrative that is entirely divorced from the from the system. This would mean that none of the encounters within the game, social or otherwise, interact at all with the setting or narrative, by the way.

That condition is more stringent than anything he's claiming depends on. To say that the game can be meaningfully separated into distinct aspects doesn't require that the game have no interaction between those aspects, just that the separation into aspects introduces some clarity into understanding player performance. A given classifier isn't necessarily going to work on 100% of the data, but if it covers more data than the alternatives then it can still be a useful tool towards understanding.

[Ravian]

I generally prefer to have roleplaying commence beforehand with choice of words acting as a bonus or penalty to the eventual diplomacy check that follows. To me the check conveys more how the player says it than what he says. The reason I dislike having the dice occur beforehand is that I've seen a nasty habit of players rolling natural 20's and then making a ludicrous list of demands from the NPCs, with the reasoning that a critical success would mean they've retroactively convinced them of this. Similarly a dice roll beforehand discourages roleplaying itself in my experience, if the characters negotiate I want to hear talking, not just "I rolled for a total of 30, is that enough to convince them?"

A bonus or a penalty gives people reasons not only to utilize charismatic characters (since success is still determined by modifiers) but also to role-play themselves (to get the highest bonus possible). Also I on occasion will scrap the actual roll results (unless they are particularly high or low) if they manage to use just the right or wrong words in negotiating with an NPC.

[Amphetryon]

That condition is more stringent than anything he's claiming depends on. To say that the game can be meaningfully separated into distinct aspects doesn't require that the game have no interaction between those aspects, just that the separation into aspects introduces some clarity into understanding player performance. A given classifier isn't necessarily going to work on 100% of the data, but if it covers more data than the alternatives then it can still be a useful tool towards understanding.

So in other words, the skills in question are useful for mastering at least part of any given game's system.

[Knaight]

So in other words, the skills in question are useful for mastering at least part of any given game's system.

Understanding probability in general is useful for mastering part of a games system, does that mean that we're calling mathematical knowledge system mastery now? If the interacting with the system part is some tangential application of a skill, calling it system mastery is disingenuous. Moreover, the term "system mastery" arose in optimization discussions of particularly rules heavy games. It's a distinct term in RPG jargon, and it gets diluted if it starts being applied willy-nilly to things like the set of skills for interacting at a narrative level in a fictional world, even if that does provide character experience or something.

Basically, it's practically a compound word at this point. Arguing that anything that involves mastering part of a system is system mastery is like arguing that this is a pancake.

[Airk]

So in other words, the skills in question are useful for mastering at least part of any given game's system.

You ability to oversimplify things so they support your cause is impressive.

The ability to persuade the GM, which people are going on and on about here, is not mastering the system at all.

The ability to figure out that you can drop a chandelier on the bad guy is not "mastering the system" unless the system contains special abilities that give you bonuses when dropping chandeliers.

Doing things that make sense the fiction is not system mastery - because the fiction is constantly in flux. If I realize that the opponent is standing with his back to a passageway and sneak around to attack him from said passageway, I am not utilizing system mastery. System mastery would be "Is it dark? No? But it's dim? Okay, I get +1 die, but I'm a grey elf, and they get bonuses in twilight. Dim is like twilight, right? So +1 more die. Then I take off my shoes. That's +1 die. And my character has "Silent feet" which gives him +2 dice to sneak whenever he's inside. Of course, I am wearing grey, so that's +1 die. And then I will use a smoke bomb for +2 dice! Even though it makes no sense that a smoke bomb would work in these circumstances, the rules say they give +2 dice to stealth!"

To define system mastery as "anything you do in the game" is basically to redefine it to a useless definition that suits only your argument.

[AMFV]

You ability to oversimplify things so they support your cause is impressive.

The ability to persuade the GM, which people are going on and on about here, is not mastering the system at all.

The ability to figure out that you can drop a chandelier on the bad guy is not "mastering the system" unless the system contains special abilities that give you bonuses when dropping chandeliers.

Doing things that make sense the fiction is not system mastery - because the fiction is constantly in flux. If I realize that the opponent is standing with his back to a passageway and sneak around to attack him from said passageway, I am not utilizing system mastery. System mastery would be "Is it dark? No? But it's dim? Okay, I get +1 die, but I'm a grey elf, and they get bonuses in twilight. Dim is like twilight, right? So +1 more die. Then I take off my shoes. That's +1 die. And my character has "Silent feet" which gives him +2 dice to sneak whenever he's inside. Of course, I am wearing grey, so that's +1 die. And then I will use a smoke bomb for +2 dice! Even though it makes no sense that a smoke bomb would work in these circumstances, the rules say they give +2 dice to stealth!"

To define system mastery as "anything you do in the game" is basically to redefine it to a useless definition that suits only your argument.

The problem is that "system mastery" is not a well-defined term and is pretty open to a wide range of interpretations.

For example your previous example could be written as "I'm a grey Elf, my people are known for stalking their enemies in dim light, I've removed my shoes, so that he won't hear my foot falls, I've trained to walk softly in buildings like the rickity house I grew up in, I'm wearing dark colors. Lastly as I sneak in I will pop and release a smoke bomb so as to release a small amount of smoke, obscuring his vision enough that he won't realize what it is till it's too late".

Mechanics are not replacement for the narrative, they're ways to construct and improve the narrative. And a good narrative will be able to account for almost any ludicrous mechanics, although I may be biased as I read comics and am used to ludicrous things.

I agree that Amphetron's definition is pretty much useless, but he does bring up a good point, it is very nearly impossible to determine where the mechanics end and the plot begins, since the mechanics are only there to support the plot, and the two are interrelated. I've never seen a good demonstration that could completely separate the two, to where mechanics existed completely in a vacuum, or narrative exists completely in a vacuum. The only thing I can think of where there would be no resolution mechanic is single player freeform (and that's even arguable since you have your own since of verisimilitude). The second you have two players the relationship between them, even without rules, becomes a resolution system. And that is fundamentally a system, so then it could theoretically be mastered.

I think however what people are looking for is a system where mechanical mastery of the system is not rewarded. For example we could say "Rules Mastery" since I suspect that comes closer, although it doesn't strictly explain the concept. Or we could talk about the difference between soft system (things like discussion, narrative, plot, and character), which are soft and negotiable (ergo: they may be ruled differently by different people) and hard system (which are solid rules that are always ruled the same way), which would include things like bonuses, wrote tactics and actions, and would provide for a more evenhanded if sometimes less reasonable (to some people) interpretation. So I imagine what you are saying is that you prefer games with "Soft System Mastery" over games with "Hard System Mastery"

[Segev]

Out of curiosity, what would be your read of the following situation - completely unrelated to social skills, but related to the way you're breaking down player and character ability.

There is an RPG which centers - for whatever reason - around chess. Chess comprises the major conflicts of the game, and players must play chess with the DM in order to determine the outcome of those conflicts. However, players can make characters with various chess-related special abilities, fed by the minutes left on the game clock. For example: "Mind Reading - spend 1 minute to ask the DM what his response to a given move would be (he must answer truthfully)", "Clever Distraction - spend 1 minute to decrease the DM's game clock by 4 minutes", "Battle of Wills - Choose one of the DM's pieces other than the King, and he chooses one of your pieces. For the next two moves, neither of you can move those pieces", "Blinding Brilliance - when an NPC challenges you, spend 15 minutes; the DM must play blind chess; you however can see the board normally" etc.

The resolution is driven by the chess game and player ability rather than the character's mechanics, but the character mechanics are certainly 'ultimately important to the actual success of the character' (forcing the DM to play blind chess, for example, is likely to win you the match even if the DM is much better than you at chess). So where does something like that fall on your hierarchy of systems (putting aside that it'd be a very tedious and somewhat ridiculous RPG to play).

It would really depend. It certainly seems thematic, but I question the ability to design the game such that resolution of non-chess events is adequately achieved in such a system. Because of that, unless I was surprised by the facility of this system in anything other than its area of focus, I start to question whether it's really an RPG so much as a weird game of chess.

I assume, for example, that, as an RPG, you make PCs, and that they role play through events larger than a single or even a series of IC chess games. Chess obviously is a major focus, much as the game of Go was in Hikaru no Go (a manga about the game in question). So let's pretend for a moment that there's a chess-equivalent setting. This isn't unreasonable; chess tournaments exist, and if plotlines can be created around children's card games taken way too seriously in-setting, the same could be done with chess.

However, there is presumably something other than the chess games which require resolution. So "playing chess" would need to be used far more deeply to create resolution structures.

I would say that the primary issue with this is that it makes one's ability with chess actually how well one can do ANYTHING in the game.

So, insofar as the game proposed would achieve allowing non-chess players to participate, no, I think it's a failure. If its audience is people already good at chess who want to use the chess-based resolution system to be good at other aspects of intrigue and plot-driven storylines surrounding the chess games which crop up frequently, perhaps having the results of the IC chess games being far more important IC than they generally would be IRL, it would be an interesting game.

Done particularly well, it might have a simple enough resolution system that your strategy with chess moves is less important than your choice of what resources to expend on setting up or exploiting your board with the GM for certain events. The more it made direct skill with the full game of chess less important, the better it would do as an RPG which utilized chess as a resolution mechanic.

But if you actually had to play chess with the DM to resolve chess games, and the only nod to your character playing at a different skill level than would you is how many "cheats" your character gets, it would ultimately fail because it relies too heavily on how good you are to begin with. If your DM is not as good as you, for example, your cheats make you enormously overpowered. If he's significantly better than you, they might not even keep you up with where your character is supposed to be.

The concept is interesting, but you don't ever want the resolution of a game-centric skill to rely directly on the skill of the player in that area. Indirectly is okay, but the final resolution mechanic needs to have more to do with the character's abilities than the player's. Which means success/failure needs to be determined by how good the character is supposed to be, not by how good the player is.

[NichG]

It would really depend. It certainly seems thematic, but I question the ability to design the game such that resolution of non-chess events is adequately achieved in such a system. Because of that, unless I was surprised by the facility of this system in anything other than its area of focus, I start to question whether it's really an RPG so much as a weird game of chess.

This is primarily a semantic distinction that I think is best to put aside, because converging on a definition of RPG is not really related to the game design issues, which are IMO much more interesting than the debate on semantics. In other words, if you just want us to use the terminology 'game' for this instead of 'RPG', I'm fine with that if it enables us to move on.

I would say that the primary issue with this is that it makes one's ability with chess actually how well one can do ANYTHING in the game.

So, insofar as the game proposed would achieve allowing non-chess players to participate, no, I think it's a failure. If its audience is people already good at chess who want to use the chess-based resolution system to be good at other aspects of intrigue and plot-driven storylines surrounding the chess games which crop up frequently, perhaps having the results of the IC chess games being far more important IC than they generally would be IRL, it would be an interesting game.

Yes, I think there is a bit of a necessary presumption here that the people who are playing this game are doing so because they're interested at least partially in playing chess. Essentially, the 'intended audience' is people who are willing and desirous of engaging with the game's primary resolution mechanic (which, in this particular case, happens to be chess).

Maybe I should spin it out a little bit to clarify certain distinctions. Lets split this into Game A, which is the Hikaru no Go-alike except with chess, and Game B. For Game B, lets say for the sake of argument that actual chess is only tangentially relevant to what's going on in game (this game gets weirder and weirder when you do this, but for the sake of argument). The conceit is now that the characters are 'playing chess with fate' in order to bias the outcomes of major decision points in their lives - similar to the semi-modern mythology of playing chess with Death for your life.

Thus, player performance at Game A is related to the in-game fluff (characters playing chess), but player performance at Game B is nearly completely arbitrary and unrelated to the in-game fluff, it just so happens that 'chess' is the game's equivalent of a d20.

But if you actually had to play chess with the DM to resolve chess games, and the only nod to your character playing at a different skill level than would you is how many "cheats" your character gets, it would ultimately fail because it relies too heavily on how good you are to begin with. If your DM is not as good as you, for example, your cheats make you enormously overpowered. If he's significantly better than you, they might not even keep you up with where your character is supposed to be.

Yes, the game works substantially better when the DM is better than all the players (though, I often feel this is equally true of D&D). If that is not the case, in chess (and Go) there is the concept of player rankings and handicaps which could be used to adjust the scenario for skill differences. The character abilities themselves can also achieve this, to some degree.

The concept is interesting, but you don't ever want the resolution of a game-centric skill to rely directly on the skill of the player in that area. Indirectly is okay, but the final resolution mechanic needs to have more to do with the character's abilities than the player's. Which means success/failure needs to be determined by how good the character is supposed to be, not by how good the player is.

This is the central point of difference I think, but maybe it can be sharpened down by comparing the cases of Game A and Game B that I mentioned above. The only difference between the two is that Game A is about chess - both internally and externally - whereas Game B is not actually about chess but uses it as a weird resolution mechanic. I would argue personally that Game A is the better game because it is less incoherent, despite the choice of making the actual game about chess being something which more directly implies an equivalency between the player and their character's ability (which, in your particular standard, is strictly negative).

D&D is largely a case of 'Game B' - the induced player skill is the comprehension and understanding of the interactions between passages in a large body of rules text, but the game is not really about that in character. The 'Game A' equivalent of D&D would be if all the characters in D&D were literally reality-warping lawyers who, in-character, read the great books of the cosmos and looked for loopholes, interactions, and the like in order to gain and apply power. Would that actually be a worse game?

I'd say I'm on the fence about it for myself - there's enough facepalmingly ridiculous stuff in D&D that adding the direct connection would explain away many of the incoherencies and allow the events of the game to seem much more logical (if very meta). The fact that the true character ability (reading rule-books and exploiting loopholes) and the out-of-character ability (reading rule-books and exploiting loopholes) align doesn't change much for me, any more than I'm bothered by having to be able to aim when playing an archer in Skyrim or things like that.

[Jay R]

Please provide an example of a game with setting and narrative that is entirely divorced from the from the system.

The rules of GURPS are divorced from the setting. You can learn the rules first, and then apply them to any setting.

By contrast, Bushido is a set of rules for feudal Japan. To play it well involves gaining some knowledge of the code of Bushido.

Flashing Blades is a set of rules for 17th century France as portrayed in movies and novels. Knowing Dumas and Errol Flynn is a positive help to understanding what the game rules mean. I've had good players make mistakes because they simply don't get that commoners don't talk back to the Cardinal.

TOON is a game of cartoon characters. A serious role-player has to re-learn how to role-play.

The rules of Call of Cthulhu are specifically worked around the sort of world that contains the Elder Gods.

Using Flashing Blades rules in Feudal Japan would lead to a very awkward, surreal game. Playing a Cthulhu game under TOON rules would lead to utter chaos.

This would mean that none of the encounters within the game, social or otherwise, interact at all with the setting or narrative, by the way.

No it doesn't. This is clearly not what anyone meant.

[Segev]

The main reason I think Game A is not the best idea is that the idea behind an RPG which a specific focus on particular kinds of tales (e.g. Hikaru no Chess, the game about characters who want to be chess grandmasters) is to allow players to try to play characters who are talented to varying degrees within the area of the game's focus.

Let me go full on into Hikaru no Go, here.

Hikaru no Go is a manga (and an anime based on the manga) wherein the central characters live and breathe the world of semi-professional and professional Go. The reader doesn't need to know particularly much about the game, and will get at least the very basics explained as he reads. But the reader only gets "genius bonus" out of it if he knows particularly much about it. People of low skill in Go (or even no skill) can read the manga or watch the anime and enjoy watching these (at least supposedly) high-skill players facing off against each other, and get immersed in the story about this game and the world surrounding it.

If somebody came out with "Hikaru no Go, the RPG," it would presumably be seeking to allow those readers to enter this setting and play characters who participate in various ways in the world surrounding professional Go.

Not all such players are going to be avid Go-players, themselves. Many may have no more than a highly rudimentary understanding of the game. Still, these players likely wish to play characters who have levels of skill that place them within the competitive range of professional Go, at the very least. Perhaps some are better at multiple games, others are good at "teaching-go," and still others are known for specific play styles, but they all want to be "good at Go" in some way that makes their character relevant to the central aspect of the game. (This is why it's generally expected that all characters in D&D have combat capability, incidentally; combat IS going to happen and is often considered the central focus of the game.)

The Hikaru no Go: the RPG system needs, therefore, to have resolution mechanics that abstract away a lot of the importance of how well (and with what style!) the players understand and play Go, the game, itself. If it can use Go motifs in its resolution, that's great, but it needs to not rely on direct Go-playing skill, because the more it does, the less it allows for the best Go-player at the table to play something that might be other than the best Go-player in the setting, and the less it allows for the beginners to even try to play Go-playing prodigies.

[kyoryu]

The Hikaru no Go: the RPG system needs, therefore, to have resolution mechanics that abstract away a lot of the importance of how well (and with what style!) the players understand and play Go, the game, itself. If it can use Go motifs in its resolution, that's great, but it needs to not rely on direct Go-playing skill, because the more it does, the less it allows for the best Go-player at the table to play something that might be other than the best Go-player in the setting, and the less it allows for the beginners to even try to play Go-playing prodigies.

"Needs" is a strong word, and implies a certain level of objectivity.

Why should the ability to master the systems of an arbitrary RPG be more important than actual Go-playing skill in determining the outcome of a Go match in the RPG?

For that matter, why wouldn't Go be a reasonable resolution mechanic? Why is it inherently better for someone good at "RPGs" to be able to play a Go master regardless of actual Go skill, but bad for a Go master to do the same because they're bad at "RPGs"?

A lot of this, realistically, boils down to intended audience. If the goal of the game is to appeal to non-Go-playing people, then requiring Go skills is obviously a bad idea. And, presuming that you're not a Go expert, it would seem likely that you'd prefer the non-Go-skill version of the game (for the record, so would I).

But there's a far cry between that and making a blanket statement about what the game *needs*. If the game was partially intended for people learning Go, as a way to encourage learning the game better, requiring actual Go skill would be a *positive* thing.

Or, to put it simply: Your preferences are not objective criteria.

[NichG]

To put the above point in another way, it seems that the disconnect is in what the implied purpose of the game is to you, versus to others here. Specifically, you're focusing on the part of the game that tries to model differing levels of skill between player and character at some set of tasks. However, if the purpose of a given game is not that, then there's a disconnect when that is assumed to be the game designer's purpose (but when in reality, it wasn't actually a design parameter at all, or not in the same way).

E.g. one can say that D&D is an engine for modelling how good different heroes are at the tasks of battle. One can also say that D&D is a framework that provides concrete anomalous abilities to integrate the supernatural in storytelling in a constrained way (e.g. the core is the list of spells, class abilities, etc which define specific 'supernatural things people can do' as types of 'moves' that can be used to play the game). One can also say that D&D is a battlegaming system, much like chess, but much more complex and which allows players to add a degree of customization to their move-list. The game has likely been shaped by designers who sought different things out of it, given its long history, so its hard to say that D&D's purpose is any single one thing. Add to that, at each table, the DM and their house-rules may be bending it to a distinct purpose as well.

[Segev]

I actually don't disagree with the post responding to my last one. I was running on an assumption that the audience being targeted was "non-Go-enthusiasts," or at least included such a vast number of non-Go-enthusiasts that making it revolve around Go-playing ability would be a bad idea.


However, I will venture to say that, if the goal is to play characters who are at different levels of skill at Go than the players, having Go-based mechanics may still be a bad idea. There's a reason dice are the most common form of final determining mechanism in RPGs: the goal of the game is to allow for modeling skills the players do not have with something objective, and not directly dependent on the skill of the players at...well, anything other than the game itself.

"The game itself" being an acknowledgement that, yes, building your character to do exactly what you want as well as you want him to is its own skill.

To put it in perspective, I could create a game system whose resolution is simply achieved by arm wrestling. The player arm wrestles the GM and whoever wins the arm wrestling match wins the contested event (whether against an NPC or a flat DC).

This would tend to make the strongest player simply always have the best character at doing anything, but it's possible.

[kyoryu]

However, I will venture to say that, if the goal is to play characters who are at different levels of skill at Go than the players, having Go-based mechanics may still be a bad idea.

Clearly. In such a system, the abilities of the character and the abilities of the player would generally align Sure, you could have things in there to handicap players, but there'd still be that alignment.

That's kind of my point, really. When designing a game you need to figure out what skills you want to be important to the game. And there's really no right answer, it's just a matter of what effect you're trying to have, and what you're trying to control for.

And, surprise surprise, most people argue vehemently that the things they're good at *should* matter, and the things that they're not good at *shouldn't* matter.

And that takes us back to social aspects of games. You can mechanize them, or not. Either way works. Some people will argue for non-mechanized versions, either because they're good at social negotiation or enjoy that type of play, and some people will argue for mechanizing them, either because they're good at game mechanics stuff or just enjoy the feel.

There's no right, no wrong. It's just a matter of what audience you're trying to reach, what experience you're trying to give, and what skills you're trying to control for.

[Dimers]

And, surprise surprise, most people argue vehemently that the things they're good at *should* matter, and the things that they're not good at *shouldn't* matter.

I can't say I agree. I want uncreative, non-smart players to be able to use high-intelligence characters who come up with ideas constantly. I want fools to be able to play sages; I want grating people to be allowed characters with grace. I'm pretty adept at getting an idea across in writing, but even when I PbP, I prefer to have and use social mechanics instead of basing results on *my* word choice.

I mean, all of us here have enough social skill to make these points to each other (within the forum's restrictions, yet!), and half of us are arguing that our social skill shouldn't make any or much difference in a game.

[kyoryu]

I can't say I agree. I want uncreative, non-smart players to be able to use high-intelligence characters who come up with ideas constantly. I want fools to be able to play sages; I want grating people to be allowed characters with grace. I'm pretty adept at getting an idea across in writing, but even when I PbP, I prefer to have and use social mechanics instead of basing results on *my* word choice.

I mean, all of us here have enough social skill to make these points to each other (within the forum's restrictions, yet!), and half of us are arguing that our social skill shouldn't make any or much difference in a game.

Most != all

And *very few* people will argue for a skill they don't have (or are very weak in) to be dominant. In the case of social skills vs. game skills, you're essentially choosing between two skills that you have, which isn't *quite* the same thing.

[NichG]

I actually don't disagree with the post responding to my last one. I was running on an assumption that the audience being targeted was "non-Go-enthusiasts," or at least included such a vast number of non-Go-enthusiasts that making it revolve around Go-playing ability would be a bad idea.

However, I will venture to say that, if the goal is to play characters who are at different levels of skill at Go than the players, having Go-based mechanics may still be a bad idea. There's a reason dice are the most common form of final determining mechanism in RPGs: the goal of the game is to allow for modeling skills the players do not have with something objective, and not directly dependent on the skill of the players at...well, anything other than the game itself.

This is sort of what I've been trying to deconstruct in my own approaches to game design, for reasons that go beyond this particular discussion.

Basically, there's been a shift from games in which the primary 'gaming' is done at the table to games in which the primary 'gaming' is done away from the table. In D&D, the character-building minigame has become increasingly important compared to the actual decision of what the character does in-game in determining success, and part of the reason for that is a focus on binary, dice-based resolution coupled to strong driving forces from the character sheet. There's a number of design motifs that basically exacerbate this problem by abstracting out details which are hard to compute, leaving the determination of the game outcome more and more in the hands of 'who has the higher modifier'. I generally don't like this direction because it makes it harder to actually make the time spent at the table engaging, to create tension, etc. It also encourages some very extreme behaviors (like players having a 'build' ready before they even know the details of the campaign, which then creates conflict when that build doesn't mesh well with the fluff of the campaign, constraints/house-rules set by the DM, etc)

At the same time, I want the character building minigame to remain important because it is a part of the game that many people enjoy deeply. So the question becomes, how does one preserve the importance of character-construction while at the same time forbidding it from determining success in a player-independent way? Well, the way to do it seems to be the way it was done in things like fighting games - you give the player a large number of distinct sub-mechanics to choose from which each involve a different style of problem-solving in employing them efficiently. You make sure (this is the hard part) that each one is, when wielded by a master of using it, able to be the equal of each of the others. So the character-building minigame centers around the player constructing an ability set that optimally matches their own mental abilities and predilections for when it comes time to make use of them in-game, and the in-game challenges center around deploying and chaining those abilities in varying situations.

However, this means moving away from the design philosophy of 'aggregate modifiers and compare numbers with random variance', because once you do that then you drastically compress the tactical space you have access to. In general, anything that directly influences resolution will have this problem - compare influences, and one will almost always be 'better' than another, either immediately or statistically averaged over situations that you are likely to encounter (this is why e.g. Favored Enemy Humanoid in D&D is better than Favored Enemy Abberation). Instead, character design decisions need to center around 'incomparables' which have only an indirect effect on resolution.

This means that resolution itself will depend on a skill other than character-building, and picking that skill is an important design decision in determining the feel of the game. In general, I think its best to target things which feel inherently rich/complex already even before you merge them into the game world (this is why e.g. spatial reasoning ends up contributing to the richness of map-based combat). Its also good to target things that aren't so specific that only a small subset of the population is likely to have the skill (so this would be a mark against the Go-based resolution mechanic - you can do it, but you really need to have the exact right set of players for it). There's a certain set of very deeply ingrained abilities that everyone has to variable extent, and they map onto various types of games that have been invented: reflexes, hand-eye coordination, spatial reasoning, logical reasoning, emotional reasoning, pattern recognition, memory, timing, long-term planning, imagination, prediction, collaboration/teamwork, and socialization. There are probably others I've missed, and some of these are strongly related to each other. Not everyone will be equally competent in all of these things, but in general everyone will have encountered situations in their life that have called for each of those skills (whereas most people would never have picked up a Go stone).

So in that sense, they're all skills that in general permit you to have a wide audience, even if they each will exclude a subset of people who don't like exercising that skill (e.g. I'm not one for twitch gaming, so I'll bow out of a game that makes heavy use of it; someone else may want to bow out of games that involve heavy degrees of socialization; someone else may not like games that involve a lot of math)

However, since these are 'universal human abilities' of a sort, it means that the character will have them too. That's unavoidable, and it leaves you with one of two directions. The first choice is, explicitly separate the player's involvement in the game as much as possible, so that the player is effectively playing a different game than the character is encountering, so that both parties can fully engage their representative skills in the level of the game's reality they're interacting with. This is sort of the 'the player plays chess with Fate to determine what happens to the character' model. Personally, I don't care for it that much, because it really prevents deep engagement with the character's scenario. The player is making decisions at a distance, and this tends to manifest in terms of a lack of connection with the character or what's going on in the game-world. Aside from just being a more distant experience, this can also expose and amplify sociopathic behaviors due to the lack of an emotional feedback associated with choices the player makes about the character (e.g. murder-hoboism).

The second choice is to pick one or a handful of skills and say 'the player replaces the character for these things in particular, but not other things'. This can be done in a soft way by simply not having those things be present on the character sheet. If you don't put an 'Intelligence' score then you're saying 'intelligence is the domain of the player and is what this game is testing; everything else is the set of abilities belonging to the character'. Generally this is the direction I prefer.

[Segev]

Most != all

And *very few* people will argue for a skill they don't have (or are very weak in) to be dominant. In the case of social skills vs. game skills, you're essentially choosing between two skills that you have, which isn't *quite* the same thing.

I venture that it is safe to say that most people who are seeking out RPG forums are going to have some passing skill at playing RPGs and working with RPG mechanics. Those that do not are likely seeking help to improve.

If we were on a Go forum, I would expect all present to either be good at or at least trying to get good at Go when discussing their playing of the game.

Therefore, expecting people to put effort into understanding and using the rules and mechanics of an RPG to make their characters capable is not unreasonable. Especially when outside help can contribute greatly to the final build of a character, whereas it's a lot harder to get outside help to (say) formulate your IC argument right there on the spot.

[kyoryu]

I venture that it is safe to say that most people who are seeking out RPG forums are going to have some passing skill at playing RPGs and working with RPG mechanics. Those that do not are likely seeking help to improve.

If we were on a Go forum, I would expect all present to either be good at or at least trying to get good at Go when discussing their playing of the game.

Therefore, expecting people to put effort into understanding and using the rules and mechanics of an RPG to make their characters capable is not unreasonable. Especially when outside help can contribute greatly to the final build of a character, whereas it's a lot harder to get outside help to (say) formulate your IC argument right there on the spot.

You still seem to be trying to say that one method is unilaterally better than the other.

They're not.

Heavy-mechanics social interactions in an RPG are great. For some people.

Social-focused social interactions in an RPG are great. For some people.

Find, and play, a game that matches your preferences.

(To be clear, I'm perfectly fine in playing games either with or without mechanics-oriented social interactions. Either way works, and both can be fun. To me.)

[Segev]

The second choice is to pick one or a handful of skills and say 'the player replaces the character for these things in particular, but not other things'. This can be done in a soft way by simply not having those things be present on the character sheet. If you don't put an 'Intelligence' score then you're saying 'intelligence is the domain of the player and is what this game is testing; everything else is the set of abilities belonging to the character'. Generally this is the direction I prefer.

If I'm understanding you correctly, what I'm adovcating is in line with this. The areas in which you want games to mainly focus using XYZ system should be those where the character most thoroughly replaces the player in terms of skills used. Because it is those areas of the game which are where the most "action" happens, and where it is most crucial that the PC's abilities and disabilities show up realistically to portray the character the player wants to be playing.

[Segev]

You still seem to be trying to say that one method is unilaterally better than the other.

They're not.

Heavy-mechanics social interactions in an RPG are great. For some people.

Social-focused social interactions in an RPG are great. For some people.

Find, and play, a game that matches your preferences.

(To be clear, I'm perfectly fine in playing games either with or without mechanics-oriented social interactions. Either way works, and both can be fun. To me.)

All I'm saying is that the choice of mechanics-heavy vs. "rely on the player's skill" has consequences, and that consequence will be directly related to the ability to have people actually role-play somebody of differing capabilities than themselves.

[Amphetryon]

All I'm saying is that the choice of mechanics-heavy vs. "rely on the player's skill" has consequences, and that consequence will be directly related to the ability to have people actually role-play somebody of differing capabilities than themselves.

You also said 'most.' Perhaps I'm being generous in my reading, but I read 'most' as quite different from 'unilaterally better.'